470 F.Supp.3d 1374
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background:
- Commerce investigated fresh tomatoes from Mexico since 1996 and entered successive suspension agreements (1996, 2002, 2008, 2013) that paused antidumping proceedings until a signatory gave notice to withdraw.
- Section VI.B of the 2013 Suspension Agreement allowed either Commerce or signatory producers/exporters to withdraw on 90 days’ notice; Commerce gave notice and withdrew effective May 7, 2019, resuming the antidumping investigation.
- On September 19–24, 2019, Commerce and signatory Mexican producer associations (including AMHPAC) signed a new 2019 Suspension Agreement that superseded the 2013 agreement; three members of Plaintiff Red Sun Farms’ consortium were members of AMHPAC.
- Plaintiffs (Jem D and Red Sun Farms entities) sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) seeking to set aside Commerce’s withdrawal of the 2013 Agreement, challenge use of May 7, 2019 as the preliminary determination date, and undo the negotiation of the 2019 Agreement.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (mootness) and failure to state a claim; the court held Plaintiffs’ claims were moot because affiliated entities of Plaintiffs had signed the 2019 Suspension Agreement, and reinstating the 2013 Agreement would not redress Plaintiffs’ interests.
- The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and did not reach alternative jurisdictional or 12(b)(6) arguments; it rejected Plaintiffs’ invocation of a mootness exception for claims "capable of repetition, yet evading review."
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenge to Commerce’s withdrawal of the 2013 Suspension Agreement | The controversy remains live; claims present pure legal questions that the court can decide on undisputed facts | Claims are moot because Plaintiffs’ affiliated companies signed the 2019 Agreement that superseded the 2013 Agreement, so court relief (reinstatement) cannot redress them | Moot — dismissal granted because signatories’ execution of the 2019 Agreement rendered requested relief ineffective |
| Ability of court to provide requested relief (reinstatement of 2013 Agreement) | Court can and should set aside Commerce’s actions and reinstate the 2013 Agreement | Reinstatement is not a meaningful remedy where parties have entered a superseding agreement and obtained its benefits | Held that court could not provide effective relief; reinstatement not feasible or redressive |
| Applicability of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness | Exception applies because suspension-agreement events are recurring and judicial review would otherwise evade review | Plaintiffs failed to show the exceptional circumstances required for the exception; suspension agreements are typically long-lived | Exception rejected — Plaintiffs did not meet burden to invoke the exception |
| Justiciability under Article III and jurisdictional posture | Claims arise under residual jurisdiction §1581(i) and present legal questions for the Court | Even if jurisdictional basis asserted, mootness defeats subject-matter jurisdiction; alternative jurisdiction under §1581(c) not reached | Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness and did not resolve §1581(c) issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (Article III requires an ongoing case or controversy at all stages)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (mootness when issues no longer live or parties lack cognizable interest)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (standard for "capable of repetition, yet evading review")
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (recognizes inherently transitory claims may evade review)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (mootness: decision must be likely to affect parties’ rights)
- Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FERC, 236 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (challenge to expired contract is ordinarily moot)
- Nasatka v. Delta Sci. Corp., 58 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (mootness test asks whether relief would change legal interests)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction)